We Shouldn’t Be Too Quick To Ascribe Incompetence To Obama’s ‘Apparent’ Bungling Of Syria
This post is part of a series of posts that illustrate the ‘Spirits and Types’ behind the agendas that drive our world. In this series, I will indirectly illustrate these ‘Spirits and Types’ by showing how they manifest themselves into political agendas. This will be done by highlighting specific figures from our modern world and drawing the connections between their ideology and the historic roots behind their ideas. In this manner, it is hoped that the history of these original ideas will be sufficiently self-evident to allow the reader to draw the proper conclusions about their modern manifestations and the people pushing them. If you are on the side of truth, once you learn the connections, you will see the agenda for what it really is. Now, let me explain why I think we shouldn’t be too quick to ascribe incompetence to Obama’s handling of Syria.
First, we start with the Limbaugh Theorem:
“Obama has positioned himself as an outsider…That’s one of the reasons why the constant campaign,” he said. “So he doesn’t appear to be governing, so he doesn’t appear to be part of Washington. So he appears to have this mysterious, powerful bunch of forces that are opposing him and stopping him from creating jobs and stopping him from giving people proper health care…but he is constantly out there fighting.”
Now, this is an area where I happen to agree with Limbaugh: Obama is anything but a novice when it comes to playing the political game. Or, more accurately, Obama’s handlers are anything but novices. On his radio program today, Rush was pointing out – and rightly so – that Obama has largely gotten everything he has wanted from Congress. If the man were incompetent, how could he have managed this in the face of what he calls ‘strong opposition’ in the TEA Party? Yet, Obama continues to claim that he is being thwarted by the TEA Party.
This apparent ‘excuse making’ on the part of the President is perfectly aligned with the Limbaugh theorem, therefore, because it accurately and consistently explains Obama’s actions, I am inclined to agree with the theorem – at least in principle. However – and here is where Rush and I part ways – we cannot have our cake and eat it too. If this theorem applies, then we cannot claim Obama is incompetent when we don’t see a reason for his actions, such as in Syria, Rather, we need to start looking for alternative explanations that fall within the theorem which still make sense given everything else we know about Obama. I believe this is the proper path because I accept another political theorem which is older than the Limbaugh theorem, yet is still in perfect agreement with it – the FDR theorem:
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.
So, while I agree that Obama has been playing a masterful game of politics with his domestic agenda, I disagree that he is equally incompetent when it comes to foreign affairs. Rather, I agree with FDR: we must assume that what we are seeing in the way Obama is handling Syria has been planned just as carefully as his domestic agenda has been. This means we should start looking for an explanation for Obama’s handl9ing of Syria that makes sense without ascribing it to incompetence. And I would suggest that we start by having another look at his close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.